Erasing Obama’s Record on the Afghan War
In focusing on how Obama might end the Afghan War–which hasn’t ended, of course–media accounts omit the fact that Obama massively increased the number of US troops in Afghanistan
FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.


In focusing on how Obama might end the Afghan War–which hasn’t ended, of course–media accounts omit the fact that Obama massively increased the number of US troops in Afghanistan


Reports of Al-Qaeda linked fighters taking over the Iraqi city of Fallujah have prompted a lot of media coverage about the US sacrifice there. In the process, the history of the war is being dramatically rewritten.


More than a decade later, US media still see Fallujah primarily as a place where US forces suffered–and died–perhaps “in vain.” Then and now, the hundreds of Iraqis who died in Fallujah hardly register at all.


Brookings think tank hawk Michael O’Hanlon is on the Washington Post op-ed page today trying to convince readers that there are reasons to be hopeful about the Afghan War. It’s a story he’s been telling for a while now.


Most people know that Obama did not take office in 2010. So why offer that as the starting point in an analysis of how Obama is “bring[ing] the troops home” from Afghanistan?


Joking about pop music that’s so bad it’s painful helps obscure the all-too-serious use of sound as a weapon that causes actual pain.


If there’s one thing we know, the Obama White House hates leakers. Especially leaks about sensitive national security issues. Except when the leaks are the official kind.


Whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, and mass shooters Nidal Hassan and Aaron Alexis: Time wonders how these four dangerous individuals managed to slip through the system?


When they’re used by official enemies, cluster bombs are weapons of indiscriminate terror. When they’re used by the United States, they’re not much worth talking about.


Whenever war is near you can count on U.S. media to tout the lethal efficiency of U.S. weapons


Which account of the mass deaths in Syria should be given more credence: the U.S. government version introduced by Secretary of State John Kerry, or the article published by the Minnesota-based news site Mint Press? The government account expresses “high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack.” The Mint report bore the headline “Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack.”


Time magazine’s Michael Crowley (9/9/13) offers an analysis of how the Syrian situation reflects on Barack Obama’s presidency: Whatever comes of Obama’s confrontation with Assad, an even more dangerous confrontation lies in wait—the one with Iran. If another round of negotiations with Tehran should fail, Obama may soon be obliged to make good on his […]


Providing convincing evidence that chemical attacks actually were the work of the Syrian government should be the first order of business. But it’s hard not reach the conclusion that some in the media have already made up their minds.


A headline is sometimes worth a thousand words, and this was definitely the case after a deadly drone strike occurred in Yemen last week. “Drone Strike Kills Six Suspected Militants in Yemen,” a Reuters headline (8/7/13) declared. “More Suspected Al-Qaeda Militants Killed as Drone Strikes Intensify in Yemen,” a CNN.com headline (8/8/13) offered. Whatever the […]


If you’re the commander of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan and you want to send a message that those troops need to stay in the country past 2014, apparently you just tell the New York Times that you’re ready to talk.


Think tanks are important institutions that provide information and analysis to both policy-makers and the public. But when they court donations, it can become unclear whether that analysis is tainted by donor agendas.


When a journalist dies, how can you tell if they’ve had a career that’s upheld the proudest journalistic traditions of challenging the powerful and fearlessly exposing the truth? The New York Times will attempt to piss on that career in the journalist’s obituary.


What Tim Dickinson called Hastings’ “enthusiastic breaches of the conventions of access journalism” were what enabled him to report the unguarded assessments of the officers running the occupation of Afghanistan.


How many Iraqis died in the Iraq War? Public responses to that question are disheartening because they reflect a very distorted public perception of the war. But they are indicative of an even bigger problem: corporate media’s inadequate coverage of the human costs of U.S.-led wars.


This week on FAIR TV: Obama’s big speech on U.S. anti-terrorism policies was treated as a big shift, a pivot away from war. Was it? Activists around the world rallied against Monsanto–which wasn’t considered big news here. And Bob Schieffer complains that the White House makes it hard to get good guests for his Sunday […]

FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. We expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, we believe that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001
Tel: 212-633-6700
We rely on your support to keep running. Please consider donating.